Kenny Baclawski Maori Linguistics final paper A/O Possession in Modern Maori Kenneth Baclawski Linguistics 54: Maori Linguistics Professor James N. Stanford, Professor Margaret Mutu, Senior Lecturer Arapera Ngaha Dartmouth College, University of Auckland February 24th, 2011 1. Introduction Possession is a widely discussed topic in Polynesian Linguistics in part because of the complex dual system shared by most languages in the Polynesian family and retained largely unchanged until today. This possession system is represented by the notion of A/O possession: a dual possessive system with a strong semantic component, most often related as the presence or absence of control between possessor and possessee. Some linguists (Mutu, 2011) have alluded to the possibility of some levelling occurring in certain languages, but most point to a surprisingly strong retention throughout the Polynesian language family. Despite this supposed unity throughout Polynesia, linguists are less than unified in their interpretation of this possessive system. Wilson, for example quickly dismiss the idea that the Maori and Hawaiian systems exhibit an alienable/inalienable distinction (Wilson, 1982). Others, such as Schutz (on Maori, 1995) and Du Feu (on Rapa Nui, 1996), however, describe the system in exactly those terms. Understandably, authors such as Wilson resist the label of inalienability in order to suggest the semantic complexity underpinning the system. A cycle of complexity has thus been created in the literature, and most writings on Polynesian possession focus on the precise semantic motivation behind the synchronic possessive system. Few if any linguists, however, have considered the possessive system diachronically as a process of gradual levelling of a Proto-Polynesian possessive system that was most likely to a greater extent semantically motivated. Mutu has acknowledged levelling in Modern Maori, though they consider these forms somehow inferior or even “mistakes,” and the true extent of levelling has not been explored (Mutu, 2011). Others, such as Harlow acknowledge some dialectal variation in the possessive forms, though they still insist that the conventional A/O possession system is unchanged (Harlow, 2007). (I make a distinction here between Modern Maori, that which is spoken by native speakers and Traditional, or Academic Maori, that which is learned in school by non- 1 Kenny Baclawski Maori Linguistics final paper native speakers. Traditional Maori is recognizable by the Modern Maori speaker and is characterized to a certain extent by an almost hypercorrect A/O possession system.) In this study, I consider the possession system as displayed by our correspondent, LK, and how it sheds light on the widespread levelling that has been overlooked by nearly all who have written on Maori and on Polynesian languages in general (e.g. Harlow, 2007; Bauer, 1993; Mutu, 2011). While it remains true that a certain notion of ownership has likely been passed down with remarkably few changes throughout Polynesia, it seems that Modern Maori is in the process of levelling the semantically- based A/O possession system to a simpler, grammatically-based possession system. It is possible that this levelling could be due to the influence of the English of European colonizers, but I suggest that this levelling had likely started long before European contact. In any case, it is worth noting that Modern Maori appears to be developing a possession system on its own, with discrete rules, descended from the Proto-Polynesian A/O possession system. Note: Our data was collected during five two-hour sessions with our correspondent, LK. LK is a middle-age female who speaks Maori and English. She was raised by her grandparents in Whangarei, a largely Pakeha (European New Zealander) settlement. Having been born in a Maori settlement, Maori was her first language, having been passed down by her parents and later her grandparents, who were all fluent speakers. Isolated enough from other Pakeha during her childhood in Whangarei, LK continued to speak Maori fluently until she married another Maori-speaker from her same hapū „clan.‟ Having been affiliated for some time with the Maori Studies department at the University of Auckland, LK now lives in the Auckland area, where she still speaks te reo Maori with her children and grandchildren. I must note that where I mention “Modern Maori,” I am referring to the speech of LK, which is hypothetically (with some evidence below in Section 13), but not necessarily similar in structure to the Maori spoken by native speakers across New Zealand. 2. Maori Context Because of the tremendous influence of European settlers and subsequent revitalization efforts on the Maori language, it is worth mentioning in brief the language situation in New Zealand. Following Pakeha settlement and more or less conquering of New Zealand beginning in the early 19th Century, the Maori language has been largely ignored, discouraged, and even banned by the Pakeha government. By the mid-20th Century, the speaker base had drastically decreased to the point where it was feared that the Maori language would soon go extinct. Owing to significant efforts toward cultural revitalization and government recognition in the 70‟s and 80‟s, Maori was made a co- official language of New Zealand, and Maori-run kohanga reo „language nests‟ and kura kaupapa „primary school‟ were founded across the country. These immersion programs provided language-learning opportunities for children from preschool to high school ages. These schools, however, resulted in several unexpected effects. First, a generation gap was created, in that children spoke the language along with their elders, leaving the parent generation speechless, so to speak. Second, the nature of Maori schooling and revitalization efforts has led many linguists to fashion prescriptive grammars of the 2 Kenny Baclawski Maori Linguistics final paper language and to resist any sign of language change as incorrect, or even dangerous for the language‟s health (Arapera Ngaha, lecture on Maori Linguistics). As such, this language background resulted in some difficulties regarding data collection. A/O possession has now become a signal of Traditional Maori spoken in kohanga reo. The saliency of this issue along with the high frequency of possessive markers in natural speech made it occasionally difficult to obtain natural speech data. For example, when a sentence would come to a possessive form, LK would stop mid- sentence and explain how Traditional Maori speakers would use a certain form, while Modern Maori speakers would say otherwise. Luckily, this salient difference has provided good evidence for the fact that Modern Maori has levelled a good deal since the full A/O possession system described in Traditional Maori. 3. Review of Previous Literature 3.1 Semantic Bases The A/O possession system, as defined by Mutu (building from the work of others, such as Harlow, 2007 and Wilson, 1982) hinges on the semantic choice between two possessive morphemes, a and o. These morphemes may be free, as shown in basic possession, or bound to other morphemes, such as the articles te and ngā, or manifested in still other morphemes such as nō, nā, mō, and mā. These morphemes are used not only in possessive phrases, but also in constructions such as the so-called Actor Emphatic construction, a type of emphatic fronting. Despite the variety in the manifestations of A- and O-Class forms, it is held that every instance of A- and O-Classes can be traced directly and synchronically back to a semantic distinction (Mutu, 2011). While Wilson manages to trace the system back to a Proto-Oceanic distinction that became a full- fledged possession system in Proto-Polynesian, he still insists that it has remained almost entirely unchanged to this day (Wilson, 1982). A-Class O-Class Kin: younger generation Kin: older generation *uri 'ancestor' Spouses Kin: same generation *hoa rangatira 'spouse' Carried items Locations Movable items Enclosures Parts of the whole Animals (pets) Animals (transport) Food Medicine *wai 'water' Chart 1 3 Kenny Baclawski Maori Linguistics final paper The semantic distinction between the A- and O-Class has been long debated and forms the lion‟s share of material regarding Polynesian possession. In simplest terms, the choice between A- and O-Class can be seen as the presence or absence of control in the relationship between possessor and possessee. If the possessor controls the relationship, the possessive phrase is marked with the A-Class; if this notion of control is somehow absent, it is marked with the O-Class. Mutu stresses that this choice is dependent on the relationship between the two noun phrases (Mutu, 2011). Nevertheless, nouns are often grouped into categories of A- or O-Class preference. Chart 1 (adapted from Mutu, 2011) above shows a basic distribution of Maori noun possessees. Exceptions to the semantic groupings are marked with asterisks. While the semantic distribution of these nouns is interesting and to a great extent represents a Proto-Polynesian notion of ownership passed down in nearly all instances to its daughter languages, extend this semantic bound to nearly every manifestation of either A- or O-Class (Wilson, 1982). As such, some forms are explained with such stretches of the imagination as “the subject owns the action” or “the subject of the relative clause owns its antecedent.” Indeed, such abstract explanations come tantalizingly close to explaining Polynesian languages as described by these authors. In nearly case, however, they ignore the possibility that some of these forms are simply examples of levelling and grammaticalization. Perhaps not all manifestations of A- or O-Class are A/O-governed, thus. As the widespread levelling of Modern Maori will show below, perhaps levelling has been an ongoing process that explains not only the Maori spoken today, but also the process in Traditional Maori as well. 3.2 Basic Possessive Forms As mentioned above, A/O possession appears in a number of grammatical elements.